Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For a decision by a body to be amenable to judicial review, United Kingdom and Singapore law requires the decision to have some public element, and not to relate exclusively to private law matters. The public element is determined by considering if the body's power stems from a legal source (the "source test"), or if the nature of the body is ...
Following the Datafin case, such decisions are now amenable to judicial review by courts. In the later case of R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Guinness plc, [1] the judicial authority of the Panel was tested further in respect of the manner in which it handles investigations into breaches of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body.A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a part of the King's Bench Division of the High Court) for a decision.
Lord Diplock held that any prerogative power which impacted on a person's "private rights or legitimate expectations" was amenable to review, while Lords Fraser and Brightman held that only powers delegated from the monarch could be subject to judicial review as a candidate for such a review as the powers in question had been delegated from the ...
For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise judicial review: "If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare ...
Judicial review can be understood in the context of two distinct—but parallel—legal systems, civil law and common law, and also by two distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized with respect to the principles and doctrines of legislative supremacy and the separation of powers.
Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.